Are black on white attacks justified?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
- Status
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Right. Because this thread wasn't about Islamic extremists, was it?
ROFL!
jzeidler
New member
Are black on white attacks justified?
https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficial/videos/10154400483241163/
If you are concerned about this world you will click on that link and watch the video.
https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficial/videos/10154400483241163/
If you are concerned about this world you will click on that link and watch the video.
MLK longed for them to be judged by the content of their character, and them attacking the police, burning things looting, attacking whites for being white and mass chaos and destruction of property says the black lives matter movement and those thugs characters are lacking greatly.
Looks like the old liberals are longing for their hippie glory pro-testy days and want a race war so they keep the flames burning, but isnt that what Charlie Manson longed for also in the 60s-70s?
Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The old hippies with their now positions of power, just want to finish what they started.
Martin would distinguish between the thugs and the movement. The movement is a pretty big tent. A lot of very responsible people are associated with it. And some hostile, violent nutters. One of the problems in having a movement with no discernible organizational structure of leaders is that you get a lack of unified vision in approach. That means protests can easily become vehicles for the sort of actions that most of those concerned wouldn't want to see.
But there's an element that can't wait for it. The same people who set fire to cars when a city sports franchise wins a title. King unified the vision of most of the Civil Rights Movement participants, though there were constant struggles by less calm and collected heads to move toward violent response. Without someone like King it's hard to keep a coherent, peaceful foot forward.
Manson was for the hippie movement what Caligula was for moderation. Most of them were aiming for non-violence, were protesting the war and looking for something else. Charlie was just a sociopath with a likened mind following. Hippies were naive, but they had a lot in common with the flapper generation of the 20s. Both saw the power structure as largely being responsible for much of the world's ills and rebelled against the strictures of fairly rigid social codes. The Great Depression killed the first movement and a lesser economic hardship, along with the end of the war that had spurred and unified so many, brought the second to a close.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
name as many as you can
and then explain why these "very responsible people" are silent about the irresponsible behavior of those that you would like to portray as non-representative of this racist, violent movement
:thumb: Black lives matter is the reverse KKK
This :
And this:
IS EXACTLY the same thing, one is no better than the other or more ok.
Racism is racism.
And this:
IS EXACTLY the same thing, one is no better than the other or more ok.
Racism is racism.
I know any number of people who support the movement (and many who are antagonistic in relation) but I don't believe for a moment that listing them will make a dime's bit of difference to you. Go do your own research if you're speaking to the celebrity angle.
You don't know who I'm talking about but you know what they have or haven't done.
lain: Right.Given your history of race baiting, this posture doesn't surprise me. Many said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, focusing on the actions of some elements within it instead of addressing the issue raised by it.
Your lack of perspective and originality is noted. :thumb:
It really isn't. But it's much easier to avoid the reason for it by dismissing the people in it, whole cloth.
BLM Baby !!!I know any number of people who support the movement (and many who are antagonistic in relation) but I don't believe for a moment that listing them will make a dime's bit of difference to you. Go do your own research if you're speaking to the celebrity angle.
You don't know who I'm talking about but you know what they have or haven't done.
Given your history of race baiting, this posture doesn't surprise me. Many said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, focusing on the actions of some elements within it instead of addressing the issue raised by it.
Your lack of perspective and originality is noted. :thumb:
There's many things that most white people don't pick up on with black culture.
For example,
black women desire to have lighter skin and straight hair, and many of them get along more with white women. Black men find those black women more attractive.
That in and of itself stirs prejudice against whites and a major cause of strife among themselves in general.
It's not rocket science. People are duped by things such as 'BLM', or being passive about black on white crime, because they fail to make simple observations
For example,
black women desire to have lighter skin and straight hair, and many of them get along more with white women. Black men find those black women more attractive.
That in and of itself stirs prejudice against whites and a major cause of strife among themselves in general.
It's not rocket science. People are duped by things such as 'BLM', or being passive about black on white crime, because they fail to make simple observations
ClimateSanity
New member
BLM is run and dominated by the THUGS. They push the agenda.
ClimateSanity
New member
I know any number of people who support the movement (and many who are antagonistic in relation) but I don't believe for a moment that listing them will make a dime's bit of difference to you. Go do your own research if you're speaking to the celebrity angle.
You don't know who I'm talking about but you know what they have or haven't done.
Given your history of race baiting, this posture doesn't surprise me. Many said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, focusing on the actions of some elements within it instead of addressing the issue raised by it.
Your lack of perspective and originality is noted. :thumb:
It really isn't. But it's much easier to avoid the reason for it by dismissing the people in it, whole cloth.
I will believe what my own eyes see and agree with angel.
That's not uncommon. People rely on the anecdotal all the time to establish bias or confirm it. It's bad science that begs for mistaken conclusion, but it's understandable. I'm not trying to take a shot at Angel or anyone I think is missing the mark here. I'm less interested in the politics of personality and more interested in discussing the thing people who spend most of their time deriding the movement rarely even note, the point and the reason it came into being in the first place and what the response to it should be.
Take this for example. BLM is a movement, not an organization. It isn't "run" by anyone. It's more like a protestant religious movement, with any number of disparate camps and no overriding authority except the central message of equality within the power structure and before the law.
And of course there's a criminal element involved within it. There's a criminal element in nearly anything you can think of, including organized religion. Disproportionate poverty leads to a disproportionately large criminal element. Couple that with protests aimed at the criminal justice system, the arch enemy of that element, and it would only be surprising if you didn't have that problem to one degree or another.
No, it isn't. It began with three people who aren't wanted by any law enforcement agency and its message and momentum has been carried on by a large number of people, few of which have been arrested for violent behavior.
What the Sam Hill is that even supposed to mean? Illicit antics? Is this your way of slathering something in negativity by insisting any action be valued according to some subjective metric you don't fully articulate?
lain:You could call civil, peaceful protest an illicit act if it runs afoul of the traditional, without it actually crossing a single ethical or legal line.
I don't think anyone has been talking about "trouble making" which is another subjective litmus and one with a rich history where race is concerned. The Civil Rights Movement caused all sorts of trouble for racists...I think that was a good thing. If this movement causes abusive and inequitable practice to be dealt with that will be a worthwhile outcome for the Republic too, even if it upsets a few people. If you don't think addressing inequity in the application of law as it involves blacks is a good cause, then you're a bigot. If you think the laws of the land should be applied without regard for race and that ending practices that move the margin otherwise is a good idea, you have a problem in your rhetoric and thinking (as expressed above).
Either way it isn't going well for you.
Last edited:
- Status